Join exonerees from death row at the Arizona Capital for a vigil and rally with guest speaker, Federal Public Defender Capital Habeas Unit, Dale Baich.

The rally is scheduled for May 4th. A screening of The Gathering with guest Florida State Attorney Aramis Ayala follows later in the evening at 7:30 PM at 5802 E. Lincoln Dr, Scottsdale, Az.

The event is sponsored by Witness to Innocence. The mission of WTI is to abolish the death penalty by empowering exonerated death row survivors and their loved ones to become effective leaders in the abolition movement.

Please respond to our Vigil and Rally Facebook event to receive updates and reminders about the event. Here is a link:

Special performance of “29 Years For 13 Seconds: The Injustices of Justice”, sponsored by Interfaith CommUNITY Spiritual Center and Death Penalty Alternatives of Arizona.

At 16 years old, Vance “Duke” Webster witnessed two friends commit a crime. When refused to “snitch” he was sentenced to life in prison. A one-act play based on a true story, “29 Years For 13 Seconds” is less about Webster’s time in prison and more about how women, religion and social services have created wild waves that he rides without the slightest hint of resentment. Don’t believe it? Come check it out. One night only, 7 p.m., Friday, January 19, 2018, 952 E. Baseline Rd, #102, Mesa, AZ.

NOTE: A suggested love offering of $10 will be collected the night of the show. You may also pre-purchase tickets

Carson McWilliams (pictured right), Division Director for Offender Operations in the Arizona Department of Corrections (ADC), told the Arizona Republic that the new incarceration conditions provide an “atmosphere where [prisoners] can socialize,” resulting in “reduce[d] anxiety” that, in turn, “adds to safety control” of the prison. And, prison officials say, it has reduced institutional costs.

Prior to the lawsuit, death row had meant 23-hour-per-day confinement in a concrete cell the size of a parking space, shuttered by a steel door with a perforated slot through which the prisoners would receive their meals, and with a bench bed and a sink attached to an uncovered toilet. Prisoners had no contact visits with families or lawyers, were handcuffed behind the back and subjected to body-cavity searches whenever they left their cells, and were restricted to showering or exercising three times a week. They also were denied prison jobs and educational opportunities. About the solitary conditions, McWilliams remarked, “The more you’re restricted inside a cell, the more likely you are to have depression, to have anxiety, to have other types of mental problems that could lead to some type of problem inside the system, whether its self harm, or suicide, or aggression towards a staff member or towards another inmate.”

One death-row prisoner who was interviewed by the paper said, “It’s hard to explain the deprivation. . . . It weighs on your mind.” McWilliams said it now requires fewer officers to manage death row because officers no longer have to deliver individual meals or individually escort each of the 120 prisoners. Kevin Curran, who has been a prison warden at various facilities run by the ADC, said that he “feels safer among the death-row men than among the career criminals and gangsters in the general population.” Under the new conditions, prisoners are able to socialize with each other in activities such as playing basketball, volleyball, or board games, and can eat meals together. One ADC corrections officer told the Arizona Republic that he was “apprehensive” at first about the changes, but the transition has been “very good” with only a “few minor incidents,” which were “a lot less” than he expected.

It is irrevocable. No justice system is safe from judicial error and innocent people are likely to be sentenced to death.

It does not keep society safe. It has never been conclusively shown that the death penalty deters crimes more effectively than other punishments.

It is unfair. The death penalty is discriminatory and is often used disproportionately against people who are poor, people with intellectual or psychosocial disabilities, and from racial and ethnic minority group. In some places, the imposition of the death penalty is used to target particular groups based on sexual orientation, gender identity, or religion.

Not all murder victims’ families want the death penalty. A large and growing number of victims’ families worldwide reject the death penalty and are speaking out against it, saying it does not bring back or honor their murdered family member, does not heal the of pain of the murder, and violates their ethical and religious beliefs.

It creates more pain. The death penalty inflicts pain on the families of people on death row and causes great pain to the family members of people who have been executed.

It is inhuman, cruel and degrading. Conditions on death row inflict extreme psychological suffering, and execution is a physical and mental assault.

It is applied overwhelmingly in violation of international standards. It breaches the principles of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which states that everyone has the right to life and that no one shall be subjected to torture or to cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. On six occasions, the United Nations General Assembly has called for the establishment of a moratorium on the use of the death penalty (resolutions 62/149, 63/168, 65/206, 67/176,69/186 and 71/187, adopted in December 2007, 2008, 2010, 2012, 2014, and 2016).

It is inefficient. It diverts time and money from other more efficient law enforcement measures.

Abel Hidalgo presented a constitutional challenge to the Arizona Supreme Court alleging that Arizona’s statutory scheme establishing aggravating factors to justify the death sentence in some first-degree murders did not sufficiently narrow the class of cases eligible for the death penalty under the seminal United States Supreme Court case, Furman v. Georgia. To support his argument, Hidalgo relied upon a study presented to the trial court establishing that approximately 99% of all first-degree murder cases in Arizona had at least one aggravating circumstance present. Under Arizona law, only one aggravating circumstance listed under A.R.S. 13-751(F) must be proven to a jury in order to obtain a death sentence. The trial court had accepted the study’s findings but rejected Hidalgo’s constitutional challenge. The Arizona Supreme Court also rejected the challenge. (Opinion available here.)

Former Acting Solicitor General, Neal Katyal, has joined Hidalgo’s legal team to present the constitutional challenge to the death penalty that some scholars suggest could abolish the death penalty at a national level. As of now, the United States Supreme Court has not decided whether it will hear the case.

Read more about the case, including Hidalgo’s petition for cert, here.

President Alan Tavassoli conducted a lunch presentation at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law on September 29, 2017. Approximately 50 students attended the event.

Mr. Tavassoli’s presentation provided an overview of the legal framework governing capital trials in Arizona from the initiation of the case to the jury’s deliberations in the guilt, aggravation, and mitigation phases of a capital trial.

Mr. Tavassoli, who is also a capital defense attorney, explained the ethical requirements a defense team must meet in order to provide competent legal services to defendant’s facing the death penalty.

Death Penalty Alternatives for Arizona is working to schedule a discussion every month during the lunch hour at the Sandra Day O’Connor College of Law as part of its educational efforts to raise awareness about the death penalty in Arizona.